W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Discussion on SC numbering

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:58:49 +0000
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
CC: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FB440394-A8A4-4425-8763-FE4383A7F163@nomensa.com>
> We should not touch current SC. If there is slight overlap with SC, so be it….:-)

Hi Katie,

That isn’t the situation for many new SCs, the impact of that approach is that either:
-          None of the ‘increased’ requirements can make it through to 2.1 (including many from COGA), or
-          We will have duplicate (raised level) or severely overlapping SCs.

For example (from a quick skim, there are probably more):
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/56

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/51

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/40

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/33

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/29

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/22

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/13

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/7

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77


All of those will either overlap *a lot*, or they can’t go into 2.1.

NB: I had raised this previously [1], but it wasn’t really the time to discuss it as the SCs weren’t close enough. Now they are.

What I’m saying is that if a new SC is “Good” (meets the SC requirements apart from overlap), then we tackle each case, analyse the understanding, techniques & failures docs, and if it can be done in a backwards compatible way, update the existing SC.

Cheers,

-Alastair

1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0018.html

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 15:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC